Re: Starting to get annoyed.

"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Easter wrote:
> >
> > Discussing a problem with heldmail is best done by discussing the
> > particular SC Xlines which show why it was held.
> >
> What the heck is that, and why should it concern me in the least?
> Seriously, if Spamcop can't accomodate my circumstances then I shouldn't
> be paying them anything.

Of you want to resolve why something is or isn't working, someone has
to take a look.  It's your e-mail, one would think you'd want to sort ot
out.  If you don't know how, you're going to have to let someone else
"see" the data involved in order to offer up a suggestion or two beyond
what's already been offered.

> I've had lots of other problems, as well, such as their "bug" that
> identifies my institution's email server as "open transfer" when it's no
> such thing.  This is GMU and they've been trying to get Spamcop to clean
> up their software bugs for ages, to no avail.  They won't even respond.
>   Hell, I'm ready to discontinue the service even though I'm paying for
> it, the technical problems are so unsettling.

And now you're hel;ping to confuse the issue .... You started talking
about a SpamCop.net giltered e-mail account, which is handled on
JT's hardware on the east U.S. coast.  This last paragraph deals with
the Parsing & Reporting side of the house, which is hosted on IronPort
systems on the west U.S. coast.  Not the same people, not the same
software, not the same functions.

> Bottom line is that, as yet, 75% of the emails I get in my inbox are
> spam.  The service is crap.  There's just no other way to put it.  My
> fantasy was that the spammers were deliberately targetting Spamcop
> because it was such an effective enemy, but it's been three years with
> no policy changes, and apparently not even any sofware updates.  Pathetic.

Did you offer to take up JT's offer / request to work with a Beta system
quite a while back?  No idea what you might mean as far as "policy
changes" ... the 'no updates' .. well, one thing that comes to mind was
the re-ordering of some of the tools on the e-mail systems, i.e., moving
SpamAssassin up in the sequence of events .. that has led to folks
believing that the SpamCopDNSBL had become less effective (hard to
say, as the issue is that so much stuff gets blocked by the SpamAssassin
tool before it ever gets to being naluzed by the SpamCopDNSBL)
(and this is coming from someone that doesn't have an e-mail account,
just some one who monitors traffic in the newsgroups and the Forum,
(which is the primary support venue for a spamcop.net e-mail account)

> >>I'm also more than a little annoyed by the fact that 75% of my email
> >>is now spam.  Isn't spamcop supposed to help with this, and why
> >>aren't they effective?

No one from this side of the screen can guess at just what your
configuration might be, what filters you've selected, how you
actually handle your e-mail.

> Time to pull the plug on this sucker, I think.  I just renewed, but I'm
> going to tell my bank to demand a refund, because the product was sold
> under fraudulent circumstances.  I'll also post about this on my blog,
> which is reasonably well-read (top 30).  A ripoff is a ripoff.

If you'd care to follow the links provided, a refund is available for
the asking.

> I'm really angry, and this has been building for some time.  I can't
> actually see any benefit at all to a Spamcop account.  None.  It's all
> hype and wishful thinking.  Heck, they don't even have a customer
> complaint department.  I'm posting this here, because it's the only
> place there is.  These jerks are probably all in Barbados, and for all
> we know they're the ones PRODUCING the Spam!

Once again, "this is the only place" is a really strange statement.
The flip side to your story are a number of folks (three in just
the last two days) that basically started a bit of a rant like this,
complaining that after "having spent hours on your site and didn't
find squat" were extremely surprised to find the exact answers
they needed in one of the FAQs available within the Forum.
Two of those were issues with white/black-listing by the way.

> >>I renewed the service recently, but it was
> >>probably wasted money given the low level of service and the frequent
> >>problems (such as those misidentified posts to the academic list).

Again, you are mixing up the services of different parts of the
thing known as spamcop.net. Take a look at "What is SpamCop?"
at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=faq&article=20

> > I think it is very very bad if goodmail gets put in with spam.  That
> > flaw in the configuration [likely] or execution [unlikely] should
> > certainly be corrected.

But without the analysis on what is happening to the specific e-mail in
question, just how do you propose that nything "get fixed" ..???

> >>Seriously, how many times do I have to whitelist a sender for it to
> >>take?  Is anyone at Spamcop awake?

One recent Forum conversation dealy with the difference between
"Forward and Whitelist" and "Release and Whitelist" ... so one
could ask the question as to just how you are doing your Whitelisting.
It is your account, you are the one making / selecting the the options.
Not sure just who you may be thinking of that sets around and watches
your keystrokes.